Bo, SA, Magnus, Chris, Platt, Ron, and All -- On 4/20 Bo got excited by something SA had said:
[SA]: > The moq is also social, biological, and inorganic patterns, > plus, dynamic quality. This has been discussed on the moq > for over two years now. If you didn't see this in the past > two years, then you've missed quite a bit in the last two > years on this forum. [Bo]: > Yes, this is more like it, the MOQ IS dynamic and the static > plus all levels, in other words the whole Quality Metaphysics. > I particularly note that you say "the MOQ is", not "is on/at the > intellectual level". Exactly what I've been banging on about > for years. Hope everybody will comment on this and if they > all agree we have a breakthrough. Since Bo has opened this to "everybody", I'll add my two cents. First of all, I agree with Magnus whose point seems to have been overlooked in this discussion: [Magnus]: > No static pattern can produce anything really new by itself. > DQ is always required. On the other hand DQ can create > anything. It's not SOM that has created the MoQ, which > will then create MoQ2, and then MoQ3, etc. DQ has > created all of them. > So, as SA said, we don't need any meta-level. Just DQ. I will not attempt a reconstruction of the MoQ, which is Mr. Pirsig's right as its author to define as he will. However, I think you are all stumbling over a misconception that really has nothing to do with the author's thesis. The MoQ is not Quality, a level of Quality, or even a meta-level. It is simply the acronym for 'Metaphysics of Quality' which names Pirsig's philosophy, or as Chris described it, "the Quality understanding of things". Likewise, SOM is also a philosophy -- 'Subject/Object Metaphysics'. So, when Platt says "Yes, but the MOQ is not ONLY DQ. It is both DQ and SQ," he's talking about the quality ontology, not the philosophy which defines it. On the other hand, when Bo then asks, "Would DQ be around hadn't the MOQ been?", he's talking about the ontology, not the philosophy. Ron also recognizes this confusion and the problems it has caused: [Ron]: > Here's the shorter interpretation. Metaphysics > is defined, the dynamic quality isn't, so, separate > the moq from the dynamic quality it talks about. Let's also separate SOM from the static patterns IT talks about. In other words, don't confuse the characters with the book. Inasmuch as most of the concepts being discussed here are of the S/O variety (and, yes, that includes the intellect, Bo), there is little need to inject DQ into these arguments. I have always maintained that the MoQ is misnamed, and that Pirsig's philosophy is a metaphoric way of thinking about differentiated existence and its evolutionary development in terms of Quality, rather than as mind and matter, subjects and objects, causes and effects, and even moral dualisms. Quality then becomes the fundamental principle of reality which, in its ultimate (pure) state, is a monism. This is a nice, poetic paradigm that we can apply to our understanding of existential reality and imagine it to be a moral system. Problems arise when we try to apply the undefined DQ to this paradigm. Pirsig's primary interest is the development of culture and social values in an anthropological context, and the quality concept meets his objective. As Ron says, "When we embrace Dynamic experience and release all notions of metaphysics, then it may be said that one has attained a Quality awareness." Fair enough. But if we ignore metaphysics, we shall never have a theory to explain the 'whys' and 'wherefors' of experience relative to the fundamental source. Even if reality is a series of "quality events", there must be a first event and it must have a primary cause. Even if experience and intellection are "socially derived", we can't dismiss the fact that conscious awareness starts with the individual. It seems to me that if a philosophy is to break new ground in intellectual understanding it must offer more than a euphemistic perspective of evolutionary history. It has to be founded on a metaphysical principle that explains the ontology, and it has to include an epistemology to account for the appearance of a relational universe. Unfortunately, calling a philosophy of cultural values "metaphysics" does not make it so, and conjecture about what the MoQ "could be" or tweaking it to mean something that the author had not intended is a disservice to the author's legacy. Of course, that's only my assessment, and it could well be due to a lack of comprehension on my part. I am still trying, however, and if my disparagement should turn out to be in error, you'll have my apology. Essentially yours, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
